Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched a lawsuit against the US government, demanding the publication of information about FBI cyber surveillance operations. The EFF launched its action after the authorities failed to disclose information requested under the Freedom of Information act. The EFF wants to find out more about two electronic surveillance systems used by the government agency to monitor electronic communications." From the article: "A Justice Department Inspector General report in March said the FBI had spent about $10 million on DCS-3000 to intercept communications over emerging digital technologies used by wireless carriers before next year's federal deadline for them to deploy their own wiretap capabilities. The same report said the FBI spent more than $1.5 million to develop Red Hook, 'a system to collect voice and data calls and then process and display the intercepted information' before those wiretap capabilities are in place."

If a branch hits you on the head, but the branch wasn't thrown by a person, are you still knocked out?

Or, if a machine taps your communications and takes a transcript, even if not "directed by a person" (didn't a person have to direct the general tapping?), weren't you still tapped?

It's kind of like saying that it's ok for the police to come through your house and make a list of what you've got and just to log it, in case someday later they should have a reason to wonder what you had before

> If a branch hits you on the head, but the branch wasn't thrown by a person, are you still knocked out?

Sure. But could you charge anyone for assault? Probably not.

I'm not defending the practice; back when suspects were guaranteed the right of a trial, the evidence gathered in this manner would be challenged and most likely thrown out. (Ironically enough, under a doctrine named after the "fruit of the poisoned tree"...)

Of course, if there's no trial, there's no need for the rules of evidence

The tree comment is not about the falling but whether "sound" exists without someone to hear it. The disturbance of the air exists, that is easy. But is that disturbance "sound" if no one can hear it?

So, if someone taps your phone, your phone has been tapped.

The question you are asking should be "if no one requests that tap be used, have your Rights been violated".

Once that tap has been used, and data collected, whether any person sees that data is irrelevant. The tap has been used, the information has been collected. The tree has fallen, the sound has been heard.

Everybody who quotes the "if a tree falls" chestnut (at least those who quote it without making a joke) totally misunderstands what Bishop B was trying to say. He wasn't arguing that there is no noise in the forest — that's a silly idea. He was arguing that since events don't occur without an observer, there must be somebody observing all the events that demonstrably occur, but don't have a human observer. In other words, he's arguing that there must be a God.

So the trees do fall, and the FBI does indeed know about your dial-a-porn addiction. Unless you're going to argue that trees don't fall until somebody finds the rotten log, or the FBI doesn't know what it knows until they access their database. And if you're going to make that kind of convoluted rationalization, you need to get out more.

Nonsense. The uncertainty principle, which places fundamental limits on what you can know, has nothing to do with things you don't know because you weren't around when they happened. You can draw analogies between the quantum-level physical stuff (the uncertainty principle; the observer effect) and macrophysical phenomena: (nobody knows exactly how many trees are in Yellowstone; people change their behavior if they know you're watching them) but they're still fundamentally different.

You're confused about what I'm confused about. And I have no interest in an "article" on Shroedinger's paradox written by a bunch of geeks who think "research" means regurgitating what they think they know.

Ahh, but Mr. Schrodinger and his cat might take exception to your statement here.

Of course this discounts the possibility that to 'observe' an event does NOT require a sentient observer. Plants, insects, and other woodland creatures can observe things on their own. Or the tree that fell could observe it's own falling, a.k.a. the Zen answer.

Um, yes, even if nobody submits a query to the database that retrieves your transcript, your rights have been trampled on if you were wiretapped and the calls transcribed, machine or no.The mantra in the authoritarian/dictatorial sewers of our current "Administration" is "Data=Power".

In the old days of the Hoover FBI, the buttoned-down martinets who worked for that cross-dressing queen used to confront a citizen with a big, fat file and say "Don't you want to help your Government?" and the poor schlub would

"If a tree falls in a forest, but nobody's there, does it make a sound?"

Doesn't matter, that tree was on my property and you owe me recompense for cutting it down, whether you used a remote controlled robot or not.

All the document says is "unreasonable searches and seizures," it does not specify that, if the searching is done by non-humans, it doesn't count. Considering the nature of the document in general and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in particular, the federal government does not get to flirt with

If they want to change the rules like that in the name of "fighting t3h terr0rz!" then they can get to work trying to convince 3/4 of the state legislatures that it's the right thing to do. Otherwise, "shall not" means just that.

What constitutes an unreasonable search changes with both time and technology. No constitutional change is necessary -- the erosion of the 4th amendment will occur gradually as a reasonable person's expectation of privacy erodes. The police will never be able to go into your hom

They may not be able to win this one, but they keep up the fight and they make the populace more aware of what's going on. They also let the administration know that they must fight each time something like this happens. Just by fighting for our rights, they slow down those who will take them away and the awaken the American public as to what their government and industry is doing. They may even make some of those involved question what they are doing.

The american public, in general, doesn't give a crap about the EFF. Hell, the american public, in general, doesn't give a crap about anything other than what TV show is on and which team is going to win whatever sport they follow.Industry doesn't care about the EFF because as long as they keep churning out "oooh shiney" for the general public (the above idiots who simply don't care), the general public will continue to bend over and take it.

So spending my money, and time, helping local charities (not the magical-man-in-sky type though), instead of throwing it away funding lawyers for the EFF is being a consumer sheep? Thats funny.I'm about as far from a consumer sheep as you can get. No iPod, no other mp3 player, no TV, no trendy overpriced clothes, no sports car, no "as seen on TV" gadgets, etc. Hell, my PC is 5 years old, and probably won't be replaced for another year or two. None of this is because I can't afford it - I just don't have

As I said, if you want to throw your money at the EFF, good for you. Just don't take a "high and mighty" attitude when people disgree that its the best use of their money.

Nobody's being "high and mighty", just trying to convince you of their point of view. Glad to hear you're not a consumer sheep.

Even if DRM doesn't affect you or me directly now many people believe, myself included, that it will have major political implications for the future when we live most of our lives virtually, shaping society

I'm convinced the world is already so far down the toilet that it can't be saved, and therefore it wouldn't be right to have any children. Which is why I'd rather spend my money and time doing things that help in the "here and now" instead of "in the future" which might or might not exist (especially with the current bunch of monkeys running governments with nuclear weapons around the world)

The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense. The linked article gets this right. As far as I can tell, there's no connection with the DOD to this story at all, other than both being executive branch departments.

The summary even refers to the DOJ (a "Justice Department Inspector General") - Zonk apparently read the article, so why the incorrect headline?

I don't know why the mistake in the article, but earlier this year Congress gave the Defense Intelligence Agency exemption from FOIA requests [naa.org] regarding files that "document the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence operations."

According to this article [newstandardnews.net] about it, the head of George Washington U's National Security Archive said

[T]hese exemptions... create a black hole into which the bureaucracy can drive just about any kind of information it wants to. And you can bet that Guantánamo, Ab

On a serious side note, why are the people who are most afraid of the government snooping on their international phone calls to known terrorists the same people who are the most gungho for government managed health care?

What does one have to do with the other? Government managed health care is all about efficiency. America pays a lot more for health care than countries where it is government subsidised. Not only that, many people can't get the care they need, leading to a poor state of health as well as fi

As long as the government pays the bills, the government can connect the dots about your medical history.

Actually, that's not the case. Most countries with public health care have anonymous STD clinics, where you do not need to give a name, and you do not get billed. The government still pays. It makes sense, because STDs left untreated actually increase costs for society.

Also, even if you go to a regular doctor, the government still doesn't know what you got treated for.

simply because someone presented the issue with a point of view in place, or mislabeled it, that doesnt change the issue that the government, any government, this administration or others, republican or democrat, might be withholding documents that should be publicly available under the freedom of information act.
bickering over bias, over this mistake or that, does not change the issue.

Knowing what department you're "supposed" to be pissed off at is kind of important. You know. FACTS. Getting those right helps your cause (whatever it may be) a lot more than incessant whining thats full of mistakes.

IANAL, but how effective can any sort of lawsuit against the government be these days? Isn't it the same government that runs the courts? If the FBI feels national security is at stake by releasing the information the EFF is looking for, wouldn't they just say to the courts "oh, it's national security.. terrorists and the like, it's best if you leave us be." And the court answer would be "oh well, if it's in the name of national security, you guys are all set. Case dismissed."

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing.

Integrity's there, it's just few, far between and often gets tucked away in janitor's closets.

"U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing."

There is, at least in theory, a bright line between the courts and the executive branch. Supposedly it's why judges are appointed for life: it lets them base their decisions on their own judgment, not what will get them re-elected. (In practice that just makes the nominations more partisan, and the fights over them more bitter.)

It just so happens that the Supreme Court at the moment is as closely divided as the rest of the country. The last presidential election was 51-48, and even the heavily lopsided Senate is 55-45 (technically 55-44-1). The Supreme Court has four reliably conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito), four reliably liberal ones (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens) and one swing (Kennedy).

That last is generally counted among the conservatives, havign been appointed by Reagan, but he has voted to curtail the President on various issues, e.g. Hamdan (the one that forced Bush to change his plan on tribunals for the Guantanamo inmates).

So the answer to your question is that yes, there is a vague chance of the lawsuit being effective, though it's a close call, and it's probably up to one guy.

(Though just to get political for a second, the most reliable liberal is 86 year old Justice Stevens. If he retires or dies before January, a Republican Senate will probably replace him with a young conservative, and that would make the court 5-3-1 for the next several decades. Should the Democrats win the Senate in November, and he retires/dies in the next two years, the President will send over conservative candidates until he either sends over a moderate the Democrats can't oppose without looking stupid, or they crack under the pressure of having an empty seat for too long. The upshot is that my "yes" above may be temporary.)

What ever happened to the branches of the federal gov? Wouldent the FBI be considered part of the executive branch and the courts would be part of the judicial? Shouldent the judicial branch be a 'check' for the executive branch?

IANAL, but how effective can any sort of lawsuit against the government be these days? Isn't it the same government that runs the courts?

In most despotic nations this would be the case, but the founding fathers of the United States had in mind all too well of what happens when the government owns all three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) and puts them to use (like the Egnlish crown).

So they went about creating a system in which each of the three groups would "check and ballance" each other o

It just depends on how truly independent the judiciary is. The US government is not a monolithic, top-down entity, like the the armed forces. Even federal agencies are often at odds with one another -- refusing to co-operate, suing each other, etc.

Also, the people who are appointed to federal judgeships are typically political wonks, a sort of political geek, who have strong views on government, the rule of law, etc. They may be in favor of a strong executive, or they may literally view themselves on th

I'm too lazy to look it up, but there IS the case of the man who's been sitting in jail for 11+ years for contempt of court because he won't (if they exist) or can't (if they don't) produce account numbers in a rather nasty divorce.I'd argue that the courts ability to toss someone in jail for YEARS for "contempt" which is a rather blanket term that gets used for anything from being late to court to sleeping in court to just having a tone of voice the judge doesn't like, gives them a power that no other bran

This is like trying to dig up a small tree or a bush [pun intended] -- you think there isn't much to dig up, but as you excavate you keep finding more and more roots entwined under the ground.

So to recap: we have the telco industry handing over *all* our phone call logs to the NSA, and the FBI is involved in a wireless LAN snooping program. You have to wonder what the hell we're going to find out next about the US government intelligence / law enforcement community.

"Come on, man -- I mean, *look* at this shit! It isn't a question of whether or not you're paranoid; it's a question of whether or not you're paranoid ENOUGH." -- from the movie _Strange_Days_

Does anybody have numbers on the chances to win a lawsuit against our Big Brother?

Seriously we some famous cases that we all memorize in class where the little guy wins. But just as we shake our heads at Microsoft throwing its weight around, is there really much we (joe citizen) can do about Govt Policies?

They used to be good at this: they did win against the Secret Service for the wildly mis-aimed raids against Steve Jackson Games. And they've done other useful things since they dumped Jerry Berman as their leader: that man was clearly selling their soul to get lobbying money from telecoms and have a nice office in DC.
But they've gotten better, and seem to be aiming at serious issues: even where they don't win, they're bringing awareness to serious issues, and getting people to bring up these issues at bu

Wow, the EFF won a case for Steve Jackson Games about 15 years ago. What a great track record.

Lobbying and "consciousness-raising" doesn't mean squat, when the battleground is Federal Court. And every time the EFF loses in Federal Court, the Government has a new legal precedent AGAINST the rights the EFF was trying to protect. With friends like the EFF, who needs enemies?

Vote for the little guy in the next election. I intend to, anyway. And if enough people are upset enough to vote for the little guy instead of the Dem/Rep candidate, then yes, there is something that can be done.

I would love to vote for the little guy. As long as his/her politics are in line with what I want seen done. Or at least they have one or two things I stand for on their plate.

But once they are in office they are just one voice and without money backing them what chance do they stand? You have to have clout in Washington or in local administrations, that is why the Dem/Rep parties are so promanant, they can squish any independent we vote in. Money and Power talk very very loud.

Granted, the EFF is trying to protect our rights as citizens, and in my opinion they are doing a decent job as such; however, people please.. it is your responsibility to protect your own privacy, and if you are doing something that you do not want others to know about, please please use a Good Encryption [gnupg.org] system, a Good Anonymizing Proxy [blastproxy.com] for browsing the web, and definately get a Good Web Browser [getfirefox.com]. If people would follow these three little tips, it would make eavesdropping on your communications about 100 t

How do you know that blastproxy.com isn't actually being run by the FBI as a honeypot to entrap people who need anonymous access to acheive their nefarious ends on the web? Come on now, instead of sifting through ALL the traffic on the web, isn't it a lot easier to just create a service that criminals will naturally gravitate towards, while at the same time floating rumours that you are actually sifting through all the traffic, thus driving those who don't want to be traced to the service you created?

Unfortunately, such encryption isn't ubiquitous enough to protect non-critical transmissions: normal business and personal email, cell phone conversation, and many IM-style tools aren't remotely secure enough. Even for common encryption techniques such as SSL, the keys are rarely well-protected enough to prevent "law enforcement" from stealing them and monitring traffic secretly.There are technologically reasonable techniques, such as the so-called "Trusted Computing" tools that are growing in use, but noti

It's amazing that EFF takes the lead in going after the government when it steps out-of-bounds. It is scary to think what the government would do if there was nobody playing watch-dog (the same goes for the ACLU, PIRG's, etc...). What's even more freaky is what evil plans might already be in the works! Help us, Superman! (or Help us, ___________! -- insert your favorite superhero)ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM

Washington, D.C. - The FLAG Project at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed its first lawsuit against the Department of Justice Tuesday after the FBI failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records concerning DCS-3000 and Red Hook -- tools the FBI has spent millions of dollars developing for electronic surveil

I am not terribly concerned honestly, and it's not because 'I have nothing to hide and are therefore clean', but rather the FBI as a whole is generally so by-the-book it's sickening. On average they the boyrgscouts who don't break laws because it's illegal and they would never do anything illegal. When I talked to the EFF guys @ defcon, this was a point we all agreed on, they have no problem with wiretaps from the FBI because they sit down and do the necessary paperwork.

That we are unlikely to catch the one important call out of the millions per minute.The nature of people in power states : they will gather all the dirty laundry of opponents (and "friends") they want to and use it to increase their power.

Now, I will be branded a liberal, since I admitted watching "The Daily Show" last night, but in one of the clips at the end, in the moment of zen segment, Bush described his job, among a million other things, as confronting the problems of the country head on and not leaving them to future administrations/generations to deal with.

Can anyone say he has left office leaving the future with less problems than, about equal, or more? I am not talking about pre-existing problems like the budget or healthcare, or even 9/11 terrorism. But with Iraq, with no real terrorist connections, with our spending billions each years, probably trillions over the lifetime of that campaign, will we be safer? Will the Middle East be more stable? Will our deficit be better off? Is our standing to face other threats secured?

Now, I agree with the decision to invade Afghanistan. But, still today, we have never been shown a clear connection to terrorism against the US and Iraq, nor any good motivations besides perhaps revenge in that Saddam was his father's enemy, (and once a "friend" of the US, under Reagan or earlier I think).

I only hope that in the 2008 elections, we have a return to moderates and realistic people like John McCain or Joe Biden or perhaps, gasp, some votes for Independent around the country in different positions.

I am hoping for three things.1. The return of the Republican party. You know crazy ideas like small government.

2. Target people who are actually at fault for things. Iraq did not contain the terrorists that we seek to stop. It was a very bad decision. Innocent Americans die everyday in Iraq without preserving American freedom by stopping real terrorists!

3. The American public wakes up to the spying, removal of freedoms our troops are supposedly in Iraq to protect, and general fear campaign. Its too late

What you describe in number 1 is conservatism, not necessarily the true ideals of the Repblican Party (besides election time propraganda) even though they might have genuinely held those values at one time.If you look at the history of political parties, you will see that the values of longstanding parties change over time. This might be simply because of a changing of the guard, change in key individuals themselves as they grow older, but more often than not, they change to cater to and attract a new pote

People who consider the very existence of the Western civilization offensive to their beliefs

It is important to understand that all three groups exist. Not all those labelled terrorists by the U.S. are militant Muslim fanatics dreaming of the World Caliphate, but not all of them are merely fighting for the freedom of their people either. Iraqi insurgents would mostly qualify as freedom fighters, for example, while Al-Qaeda is an apocalyptic paramilitary organisation enforcing a

iraq was more than just a friend; they were our proxy against iran. the taliban were our proxy against the russians. the kurds, who we told we would assist, are currently our very skeptical friends; they've seen firsthand how we treat our friends.

on the subject of how the country will be left, there's nothing very surprising. bush should be charged with treason for lying to the public to take the country to war. cheney should be charged with fraud, and whoever in cheney's office 'outed' a cia agent should also be tried for treason; clinton should get a box of cigars.

I only hope that in the 2008 elections, we have a return to moderates and realistic people like John McCain or Joe Biden or perhaps, gasp, some votes for Independent around the country in different positions.

I'll be happy if my vote even gets counted and added to the tally of the candidate I intended.

That people with an interest in science and technology and with a strongly libertarian bent would not like Bush?

It's not about the issues for people like you. For you, it is a "my sports team" or "my favorite softdrink" mentality. You do not value your liberty and you do not think through the issues. You are simply rooting for a team.

That's exactly what this country has turned into. It's like a game and the losing side won't lose graciously. If Gore had won in 2000 and did all the same things as Bush, I would stand where I stand now bashing the president.

Getting Bush has nothing to do with this election since he isn't running. Plus if Bush didn't screw up so much then there wouldn't be alot of Bush bashing. I'm concerned about fellow Americans who think it's okay for our government to spy on its citizens. It's scarey that Americans get mad at fellow Americans more than they get mad a politicians. Remember the days when politicans were the ones we hated and not our neighbors.

HAHAHA.. you do understand that only right wing evangelical neoconservatives think that "liberty" means the same thing as "bombed into the stone age with no sustainable government/security/industry or future (except a civil war) or merger into a some mega theocratic union with our friends in Iran".

The rest of us see your use of the word "Liberated" for what it is: stupid and empty repetition of Republican talking points.

The mission is already "Accomplished". The mission to create instability in the middle east in an attempt to slow down Europe from becoming the dominant superpower on earth. A mission to create world animosity against the US so that dumb neocon (even a camel can get through the eye of a needle if he's a born again camel) authoritarian followers have even more reasons to go to sleep each night wondering if perhaps the rapture will finally save them from this hell on earth we've created, and in the meantime to support every single right wing neofascist measure to transfer yet more funds from the public coffers into the bank accounts of our loving and benign "business leaders".

Bush and friends didn't give a rats ass about the iraqi people in 1991 through to 2003 and certainly don't give a flying fuck now. And if you think that they give a rats ass about the American people either, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

America has been royally screwed by the neocon movement and she is still taking it like a 2 cent whore. WAKE THE FUCK UP!

grand parent post: "Liberated Iraq."my post:"HAHAHA. you do understand that only right wing evangelical neoconservatives think that "liberty" means the same thing as "bombed into the stone age with no sustainable government/security/industry or future (except a civil war) or merger into a some mega theocratic union with our friends in Iran"."

you said: "First, it's outright derision with the laughter bit."

You interpretted correctly. Outright derision is the effect I was going for.

GP requested documented proof... in actuality the documents coming to light from research over the results of US action in Iraq suggest we have done far more harm than good and actually encouraged terrorist recruitment and funding. So Bush's little "war on terror" has actually INCREASED the likelihood of terrorist attacks. How do you define success?Read the Wall Street journal, traditionally very conservative and Republican, even they are running articles on this. Two days ago there was a very telling one s

Wildly off-topic, but given that more people are dying on the streets *now* in Iraq than during Sadam's reign, I don't see how it's a step up for Iraq. And given that our "ally against terror" Pakistan has been sellingn nuclear weapons facilities and technologies to any 3rd world nation that can scrape up the money and is harboring Osama bin Laden, it's not like the world is safer.